Is the SEC all that it is advertised to be?

vinko bogataj

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
222
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Interesting read:

http://www.thepostgame.com/commenta...sto-southern-secession-chuck-thompson-sec-bcs

I think the SEC is the top league right now, but I don't think it is as strong as the national media (looking at you ESPN) makes it out to be. If you look at overall head to head, consider many bowl and neutral site games are held in SEC country, or close to it, you get a better feel for it. While last weekend was a brutal one for the B1G, let's not forget Vandy losing to Northwestern and Arkansas crapping the bed with UL-Monroe. While I think our league is down this year (and has been for several), it is not too far off top to bottom as the numbers in the article show. I would be happy to schedule a home and home with a comparable SEC program (say Ole Miss), we'll hit The Grove in the September heat and humidity, the Rebs can play us at the Bank the week before Thanksgiving in the cold. I would love to see the elimination of pre-season polls with a first poll coming out somewhere around the 2nd week of October.
 

Formo

Sections 109 and 114
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,124
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Yeah, I read that last night.. That's some very interesting information. And it exactly proves my point in that a playoff system won't fix the issue, blowing up the BCS garbage and creating a different system will.
 

wait!what?

Active member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
0
Points
36
The SEC is much better than the other major conferences.
 

vinko bogataj

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
222
Reaction score
0
Points
16
The SEC is much better than the other major conferences.
Did you review the numbers? Top end teams have performed better, but how do you explain their records vs. the Pac-12, Big XII and even the B1G (at least in bowl games)? Please elaborate further- would be interested in your rationale.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
1,734
Points
113
This seems like a really weird argument to me. I don't see how you can judge the conferences after ignorning things like National Championships.

I don't think anyone thinks that the SEC dominance started in 1998. I don't know why he is picking his stats from that date. I think most people started thinking the SEC was the dominant conference in 2006, when Florida whooped a really good Ohio State team. From that point on, the SEC has dominated it's couterparts in the BCS game (SEC teams have beaten 2 Big 10 teams, 2 Big 12 teams and a Pac 10 team in the BCS game). They have also had a winning record against every conference in college football (besides the Mountain West oddly enough). I don't want to go look up the numbers, but in the article, someone making the same argument posted the info in the comments section.

So, since 2006, the SEC has been the most dominant conference by far, top to bottom.
 

vinko bogataj

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
222
Reaction score
0
Points
16
So, since 2006, the SEC has been the most dominant conference by far, top to bottom.
I am picking this sentence since it seems like the previous commentary in you post led to this conclusion. If you go back to 2006, records (combined regular season and bowl) against each other BCS league are:

Big XII: 16-7 -Pretty overwhelming
ACC: 32-18 - Overwhelming
Big East: 12-10 -Not real impressive given the general disdain in which the Big East has been held
Big Ten: 12-9 - Not dominant considering most of these games have been played in the SEC footprint
Pac Ten/12: 7-5 - Not dominant
Notre Dame: 1-0 - 1 game isn't a reasonable sample size IMO, but I'll give you dominant here.

I was surprised at how lopsided the SEC - Big XII records were. I am not overly surprised at the league's dominance over the ACC, given that leagues challenges. Still, the SEC has not dominated the Big East, B1G or Pac-12 since 2006. They hold winning records against each league yes, but winning percentages between .540 and .580 against those leagues doesn't suggest outright dominance from top to bottom to me. Add in the fact that many of those OOC games are occurring in NOLA, Florida or Georgia and I would propose that the SEC teams hold a certain advantage out of the gate in many of those matchups. Without having the basic data, I would guess that homefield or footprint advantage (lots of SEC alums for each school in the ATL, Tampa, Jacksonville's etc...) play into results to a certain degree. I guess from my standpoint, given the self-serving chest thumping of their fans and the media lovefest from ESPN, I would have expected them to be at .750 against all leagues. As I said in my OP, I think the SEC is indeed the best league right now, but I would have a hard time calling them dominant "top to bottom". At the top? Sure. But I think the author makes some valid points even if you only go back to 2006.
 

MNVCGUY

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
9,107
Reaction score
1,852
Points
113
I do agree with the article that a major issue in college football are the pre-season polls. I have always had the opinoin that polls shouldn't start until later in the season but they have to start in pre-season so that the TV networks can hype those early season matchups of supposed top teams. Wisconsin and Arkansas are two examples of teams that were clearly ranked way to high to start ths season.
 

BarnBoy

Active member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
4,218
Reaction score
19
Points
38
I don't see how you can judge the conferences after ignorning things like National Championships.
Ahh.. seriously? Part of it has to do with undefeated teams not being allowed to play for a national championship because they don't have the "pedigree". But you can't get the pedigree unless you can win a national championship. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
1,734
Points
113
Ahh.. seriously? Part of it has to do with undefeated teams not being allowed to play for a national championship because they don't have the "pedigree". But you can't get the pedigree unless you can win a national championship. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't see how this argument really fits into the conversation. The question is if the SEC is really the dominant conference in comparison to the other BCS conferences. All of those other conferences that the author is comparing to the SEC have that same pedigree. They are part of that same self-fulfilling prophecy.

Your argument seems to be that these undefeated mid-majors (Boise State and TCU) deserved a shot at the National Championship. That's a completely seperate argument because the Boise State's and TCU's of the world are not part of those conferences of which the SEC is being compared.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
1,734
Points
113
I am picking this sentence since it seems like the previous commentary in you post led to this conclusion. If you go back to 2006, records (combined regular season and bowl) against each other BCS league are:

Big XII: 16-7 -Pretty overwhelming
ACC: 32-18 - Overwhelming
Big East: 12-10 -Not real impressive given the general disdain in which the Big East has been held
Big Ten: 12-9 - Not dominant considering most of these games have been played in the SEC footprint
Pac Ten/12: 7-5 - Not dominant
Notre Dame: 1-0 - 1 game isn't a reasonable sample size IMO, but I'll give you dominant here.

I was surprised at how lopsided the SEC - Big XII records were. I am not overly surprised at the league's dominance over the ACC, given that leagues challenges. Still, the SEC has not dominated the Big East, B1G or Pac-12 since 2006. They hold winning records against each league yes, but winning percentages between .540 and .580 against those leagues doesn't suggest outright dominance from top to bottom to me. Add in the fact that many of those OOC games are occurring in NOLA, Florida or Georgia and I would propose that the SEC teams hold a certain advantage out of the gate in many of those matchups. Without having the basic data, I would guess that homefield or footprint advantage (lots of SEC alums for each school in the ATL, Tampa, Jacksonville's etc...) play into results to a certain degree. I guess from my standpoint, given the self-serving chest thumping of their fans and the media lovefest from ESPN, I would have expected them to be at .750 against all leagues. As I said in my OP, I think the SEC is indeed the best league right now, but I would have a hard time calling them dominant "top to bottom". At the top? Sure. But I think the author makes some valid points even if you only go back to 2006.
I think we just have a different opinion of what is dominant.

Against all of these conferences they are 80 - 49 (.620 winning percentage). I think when you look at that and the bowl records / National Championships / NFL prospects . . .to me, it's pretty clear that they are the dominant conference in every sense of the word.
 

BarnBoy

Active member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
4,218
Reaction score
19
Points
38
I don't see how this argument really fits into the conversation. The question is if the SEC is really the dominant conference in comparison to the other BCS conferences. All of those other conferences that the author is comparing to the SEC have that same pedigree. They are part of that same self-fulfilling prophecy.

Your argument seems to be that these undefeated mid-majors (Boise State and TCU) deserved a shot at the National Championship. That's a completely seperate argument because the Boise State's and TCU's of the world are not part of those conferences of which the SEC is being compared.
This doesn't happen too often on message boards, but I will concede. You have a good point. I am editorializing based on my hatred of the BCS system in general. Always want to see the Boise States and Utahs get the shot... but you're right, not the point of the article.
 

GopherGack

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Points
16
One problem I have with this article is the small amount of actual analysis done. He rails on ESPN for judging teams with the "eyeball" test (well I think he actually blatantly implies ESPN is rigging the system) and putting little analysis into their polls, and therefore hype, but then the only analysis he provides to refute ESPN's assertions is the overall head to head records. That tells us little as well.

How evenly matched were the teams? Are the SEC teams beating up on the lower tier BCS squads or going head to head with equal teams? For example LSU's win in 2011 against Oregon, 8-1 in the PAC12, was an impressive win but their win in 2010 against North Carolina, 4-4 in league play, not so much. Yet in the overall head to head records they count the same.

How about the bowls? I know for quite a while the B1G were almost always playing up a level between bowl scheduling and 2 teams heading to the BCS. How has that played out in the SEC? Are their bowl games against equal competition?

ESPN certainly has a big contract with the SEC but they have contracts with other leagues as well. How much is the B1G contract worth? How about the other BCS leagues? Now they also have a contract with Texas, it will be interesting to see what changes in regards to Texas hype. How do these contracts compare?

I don't really blame the writer of the book. He is not a journalist and is selling a piece of entertainment but the journalist who published the article we read could have taken the "SEC isn't as good as it's made out to be" and run with it and done some more insightful analysis.
 

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,958
Reaction score
486
Points
83
The NFL thinks the SEC is the best conference. They've had the most drafted players for 6 years in a row now. It's hard to judge conferences based on records against each other unless you really look at the matchups, like Gack said. Rarely are bowl games ever 3rd best sec team vs 3rd best big10 team. More often it's like 3rd best sec team vs 5th best big10 team for example.
 
Top Bottom